The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1887-06-22
A Sad PerversiOn.


Mill is a sad book. His father taught
him that christianity, as commonly
presented to mankind, is the ne plus
ultra of wickedness, "the greatest enc
my to morality" radically vitiating
the standard of morals" and "lavish-
praise on q being whom, in sober
truth, it depicts as eminently hateful" ."
Now, all this is exceedingly bad, es-
pecially when we note that it is the re-
Egious instruction given to a child by
his father, and that father very able
man. Still, is there not some reason
to fear that the elder Mill had heard,
or read some theological disquisitions
which emanated from men Of high
standing in the church, and which
gave too much ground for just such
views as those which we so sadly de-
precate? If preacher, or theologi-
cal professor, of high standing, grave
ly tells you that There are infants less
than span long in hell )" that this is
according to the Divine purpose
which God purposed before the foun-
dation of the world !" that infants dy-
ing without holy baptism are to be
turned over to the uncovenanted mer-
cies of God;" that "unregenerate
souls" (that is to say, souls that have
not been manipulated by priest) are
all lost; and so on to the end of the
terrible chapter, we ask in all candor
and honesty, if it is matter of sur
prise that there should be, now and
then, fearful reaction, and that hon
est, straightforward, hard-headed
men should say that such Christianity
is horribly wicked and intensely de-
moralizing?
Sir Walter Scott in one of the Brit.
ish Reviews, says that Holy. WSlIie's
Prayer is "piece of satire more ex-
quisiteiy severe than any which Burns
ever afterwards wrote; but unfortu-
nately cast in a form most daringly
profane." This criticism is correct, as
far as it goes; but it is misleading nev-
erless; for it is evidently intended to
make Burns responsible for the daring
profanity; and this view is partial
and one-sided.
Two of the most terrible stanZas in
this composition are the first and the
fourth. The first addresses God as the
Being who, for his own pleasure, sends
one to heaven and ten to hell, all for
His own glory, and with no reference
whatever to the character, or to the
conduct of the souls thus surnmarily
and arbitrarily disposed of.
The fourth stanZa represents the sup
plant as admitting the perfect right of
Jehovah to plunge newborn infant
into hell, to gnash its gums, TO weep
and wall in a burning lake forever.
And this horrible stuff is offered up as
praise to God! In word, the prayer
assumes, from beginning to end, that
the creature has no rights which the
Creator is bound to respect.
We are not defending Burns for writ
ing this fearful caricature; but we
would simply ask if it is altogether a
caricature? Are there not preachers
and theologians now in England and
in America, who are giving too much
countenance to just such views as
those which Burns was satirizing?
We greatly fear that the pulpits, and
the theological treatises of some distin-
guished church doctors have done and
are doing not little in the way of en-
couraging the baldest and the most
blasphemous infidelity. If God 10 car
featured in the pulpit; if he is repre-
sented as entertaining himself by plot
ting eternal destruction against unborn
generations if he is held up as Be-
ing who delights in decreeing ever
lasting damnation against poor little
babe because it has not had the ma
nipulations of a priest, we cannot
wonder that, now and then, man is
found who, like Abraham, will ask,
"ShaU not the judge of all the earth do
right 2"